Yarnicopia

Yahoo! Answers: Search for
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Yahoo! Answers: Search for

Resolved Question: Why are you against homosexual marriages/partnerships?
Current scientific information shows that homosexuality "is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species, from worms to frogs to birds". See this article - http://www.physorg.com/news164376975.html Also, throughout the animal kingdom, aside from heterosexual and homosexual intercourse, bisexual and nonreproductive sex also takes place. This suggests that there are many ways for certain species to have intercourse, so why is one any more negative than another? THEREFORE, IF IT IS VASTLY OBSERVABLE AND COMMON ACROSS ALMOST ALL SPECIES KNOWN TO SCIENCE, WHY WOULD YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST IT ONLY IN THE HUMAN SPECIES? Current psychological understanding is that genes and the environment have a dual influence on homosexuality. Twin studies (Långström N, Rahman Q, Carlström E, Lichtenstein P, 2010. "Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden". Archive Of Sexual Behaviour 39 (1), p. 75–80), birth order research, fertility studies, brain structure and chemical research all provide evidence to support the influence of genes on sexual orientation. Other research into particular circumstances of the individual (childbirth, physical and psychological trauma, peer groups, sexual experiences) proves the influence of the environment. This enqironment would be unique to the individual. IF HOMOSEXUALITY ARISES THROUGH A COMPLEX INTERPLAY OF GENES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, HOW CAN WE REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT? Many people like to cite the Bible, as a tool to defend against homosexuality. For example, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."(Leviticus 18:22). The fact that this is MENTIONED in the Bible suggest that people were ACTIVELY HOMOSEXUAL. Therefore, homosexuality is not a new phenomenon. It stretches back to Biblical times, implying that humans have always acted this way, or at least, for 3500 years (when the Bible was first written). The Bible itself provides direct evidence that humans have been participating in homosexuality for a lengthy period of time, as it is expressly mentioned in a number of passages. The Bible was created in a time in which it was socially, culturally, religiously and morally wrong to engage in acts of homosexuality. This is exidenced by looking at the context of the socities in which the Bible was written. However, the Bible allowed people to fight crusades and destroy many lives. This was because such an action was considered contextually correct in that time. People no longer fight bloody and gruesome crusades, because this is not socially correct by today's Western standards. I have never heard a priest advocate killing another. IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT THAT THE BIBLE CONDONES ACTIONS THAT ARE SOCIETALLY CORRECT AT THE TIME. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT IT CHANGES ITS MORALITY TO FIT INTO CHANGING FORMS OF CORECTEDNESS. WHY DOES IT REFUSE TO PROGRESS WITH CURRENT KNOWLEDGE THAT SHOWS HOMOSEXUALITY IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON? A common sense view too: why would homosexual people CHOOSE to be gay, if we accept that it is a matter of choice? Why would people choose to be villified, denied basic human rights and suffer hardship? If it is a 'disease', couldn't we call in to work and say "I'm sick with homosexuality, I can't work"? Why are homosexual people viewed as 'lesser' beings? Take the example of Stephen Fry, a polymath. He's got a huge range of intelligence, so we can't say that gay/lesbian people are any less intelligent - discrimination only means they have less opportunity. I'm not homosexual myself, and I don't agree in giving homosexuals the right to marry. This is because marriage is a discriminatory institution that has raged against the gay/lesbian community for too long. I wholeheartedly support the notion of a civil partnership. Why wouldn't you, with all this evidence to suggest homosexuality is perfectly natural? COMMIEBLASTER: 1) Why do we need clearly defined societal gender roles? It is clear from studies that only 2% to 13% of the world's population identifies themselves as gay/lesbian. Therefore heterosexuals are in the vast majority and tend towards natural biological roles. You don't need society to define anything, thhe majority will rule out. The comparatively few homosexuals are too few in number to confuse anyone. 2) God's messengers are priests, and the only things I hear of priests in the papers are sex scandals with underage boys. CHRIS: Actually, civil partnerships are not a double standard. I used to believe homosexuals should be able to get married, and then I listened to John Barrowman, a gay m an, and his opinions about that. See: Barrowman and Gill do not want to call their relationship a marriage: "We're just going to sign the civil register. We're not going to have any ceremony because I'm not a supporter of the word marriage for a gay partnership." Barrowman explains: "Why would I want a 'marriage' from a belief system that hates me?" KOOLAID: I do not see how I am attacking anyone. I have provided evidence for my own views on the matter, in a way that allows people to refute it. It is clearly up for debate. If you are not prepared to add to the debate, then do not comment. Please provide me with solid evidence to support your views, and I will consider them. How is gay marriage unholy when athiests and agnostics get married in churches? Surely the sanctity of marriage is undermined by that alone? MARK THE HOMOPHOBIC MAN EATER: I do not believe marriage is between humans and objects, fruits or tools. I do not see your comparison as these items are not living creatures. Humans have feelings and emotions, and are capable of feeling love. Hammers, carpets and watermelons do not. So naturally, it is obvious that we deny marriage to these (although there are cases in which Japanese men have married pillows of video games). But hammers, carpets and watermelons do not represent homosexual people.
Resolved Question: Why do atheists always talk about God as if his non-existence was so obvious its pathetic?
1. You can't use science to arrive at that conclusion. 2. You won't read the Bible to see what type of evidence there is, and what you should do to get it. 3. You must think that if we all talk long enough in R/S we will find the truth ourselves. 4. You won't accept the notion that finding proof requires you to act at the individual level. 5. Most atheists assign false authority to the words of Christians, and just rely on them. 6. You want proof, but you won't accept the notion that it was written down in the Bible on how to obtain it. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. Its not found in R/S. ________________________________________________________________________________ Don't come here looking for proof. The most effective way to use R/S, is to use it as a resource for research when you already have a religious belief. Its not very effective as a conversion tool, there is no authority here to convert. I'm trying to help some of you by saying that human Christians are nobody. Don't believe anything we say. Our lives are lived for Jesus Christ. If we make you curious in any way, you should begin a process of seeking out God for yourself. Leprechauns are not the same. Pray to a leprechaun. atheists read the Bible more than Christians? examine the Bible more closely using what tool or resource? You gave too much authority over to that supposed tool or resource No, you should not believe a Christian as far as its the only thing you do. You will never be a Christian without God. leprechauns don't respond back. This is the great lie you have told yourself, that praying to Jesus is the same as praying to any object. documented evidence is great for documenting evidence of natural things. When we dive into the world of documenting God, I bet he is really having some fun in spoiling the results